Optimal target blood pressure in elderly with septic shock (OPTPRESS) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamic stabilization is a core component in the resuscitation of septic shock. However, the optimal target blood pressure remains debatable. Previous randomized controlled trials suggested that uniformly adopting a target mean arterial pressure (MAP) higher than 65 mmHg for all adult septic shock patients would not be beneficial; however, it has also been proposed that higher target MAP may be beneficial for elderly patients, especially those with arteriosclerosis. METHODS: A multicenter, pragmatic single-blind randomized controlled trial will be conducted to compare target MAP of 80-85 mmHg (high-target) and 65-70 mmHg (control) in the resuscitation of septic shock patients admitted to 28 hospitals in Japan. Patients with septic shock aged ≥65 years are randomly assigned to the high-target or control groups. The target MAP shall be maintained for 72 h after randomization or until vasopressors are no longer needed to improve patients' condition. To minimize the adverse effects related to catecholamines, if norepinephrine dose of ≥ 0.1 µg/kg/min is needed to maintain the target MAP, vasopressin will be initiated. Other therapeutic approaches, including fluid administration, hydrocortisone use, and antibiotic choice, will be determined by the physician in charge based on the latest clinical guidelines. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days after randomization. DISCUSSION: The result of this trial will provide great insight on the resuscitation strategy for septic shock in the era of global aged society. Also, it will provide the better understanding on the importance of individualized treatment strategy in hemodynamic management in critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; UMIN000041775. Registered 13 September 2020.

[A Case of Life-Threatening Angioedema Occurred During Prolonged Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Treatment].

Although angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are widely used as the first choice drug for treating hypertension, we have only a superficial understanding of their relationship to angioedema. We report a case of life-threatening angioedema. The case was a 60-year-old man who had been taking an ACE inhibitor for hypertension for 11 years. He visited his home doctor for dyspnea, and tongue and neck swelling. He was transported to our hospital because of the possibility of airway obstruction. On admission, his tongue and neck swelling became more severe. We performed an intubation using an endoscope and started airway management. We also stopped his ACE inhibitor. The severe tongue and neck swelling improved gradually and he was extubated on day 3. On the fifth day he was discharged. We diagnosed angioedema caused by an ACE inhibitor. Although the risk of airway obstruction with ACE inhibitors is acknowledged, we have only a superficial understanding of how prolonged ACE inhibitor treatment induces angioedema. So we should consider angioedema in cases of taking ACE inhibitors, especially in cases of prolonged treatment.